Tom Cruise says He knows the history of Psychiatry

[Vinnie Velvet]

Its amazing that after 14 years since the TIME Magazine story, Scientology is still around manipulating people into its cult.

That's sad.

[Hardrock69]

Some highlights of the above lengthy read:


1. According to the Cult Awareness Network, whose 23 chapters monitor more than 200 "mind control" cults, no group prompts more telephone pleas for help than does Scientology. Says Cynthia Kisser, the network's Chicago-based executive director: "Scientology is quite likely the most ruthless, the most classically terroristic, the most litigious and the most lucrative cult the country has ever seen. No cult extracts more money from its members." Agrees Vicki Aznaran, who was one of Scientology's six key leaders until she bolted from the church in 1987: "This is a criminal organization, day in and day out. It makes Jim and Tammy ((Bakker)) look like kindergarten."

2. During the early 1970s, the IRS conducted its own auditing sessions and proved that Hubbard was skimming millions of dollars from the church, laundering the money through dummy corporations in Panama and stashing it in Swiss bank accounts. Moreover, church members stole IRS documents, filed false tax returns and harassed the agency's employees. By late 1985, with high-level defectors accusing Hubbard of having stolen as much as $200 million from the church, the IRS was seeking an indictment of Hubbard for tax fraud. Scientology members "worked day and night" shredding documents the IRS sought, according to defector Aznaran, who took part in the scheme. Hubbard, who had been in hiding for five years, died before the criminal case could be prosecuted.

3. Harriet Baker learned the hard way about Scientology's business of selling religion. When Baker, 73, lost her husband to cancer, a Scientologist turned up at her Los Angeles home peddling a $1,300 auditing package to cure her grief. Some $15,000 later, the Scientologists discovered that her house was debt free. They arranged a $45,000 mortgage, which they pressured her to tap for more auditing until Baker's children helped their mother snap out of her daze. Last June, Baker demanded a $27,000 refund for unused services, prompting two cult members to show up at her door unannounced with an E-meter to interrogate her. Baker never got the money and, financially strapped, was forced to sell her house in September.

4. One legal goal of Scientology is to bankrupt the opposition or bury it under paper. The church has 71 active lawsuits against the IRS alone. One of them, Miscavige vs. IRS, has required the U.S. to produce an index of 52,000 pages of documents. Boston attorney Michael Flynn, who helped Scientology victims from 1979 to 1987, personally endured 14 frivolous lawsuits, all of them dismissed. Another lawyer, Joseph Yanny, believes the church "has so subverted justice and the judicial system that it should be barred from seeking equity in any court." He should know: Yanny represented the cult until 1987, when, he says, he was asked to help church officials steal medical records to blackmail an opposing attorney (who was allegedly beaten up instead). Since Yanny quit representing the church, he has been the target of death threats, burglaries, lawsuits and other harassment.



**NOTE** paragraph #3 is no lie. I have known people who, when saying to Scientology officials that they could not afford to "buy" any services from the CoS, were asked if they had any relatives they could borrow money from, and were pressured heavily (borderline harassment) to do so.

SCIENTOLOGY IS A SCAM OF THE FIRST ORDER.

IF MR. G WERE TO ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE TECH AND TEACHINGS OF SCIENTOLOGY, HE WOULD LEAVE SCIENTOLOGY IMMEDIATELY (if not sooner) AND STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM THEM.

If he is happy being a sheeple, then that is his loss....

[Vinnie Velvet]

Originally posted by Hardrock69

SCIENTOLOGY IS A SCAM OF THE FIRST ORDER.

IF MR. G WERE TO ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE TECH AND TEACHINGS OF SCIENTOLOGY, HE WOULD LEAVE SCIENTOLOGY IMMEDIATELY (if not sooner) AND STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM THEM.

If he is happy being a sheeple, then that is his loss....

Yeah.

I wonder what OT level Mr. G is at?

:D

Possible he hasn't been told the story of Xenu!

[Vinnie Velvet]

If anyone wants to read up on the lives that have been lost because of Scientology, go here: www.whyaretheydead.net

Some sad and horrifying deaths include:

Josephus Havenith: he died in a Scientology training camp in Florida. At the time, Scientologist officials claimed that the "60-year old" Havenith had died in bed of a heart attack. In reality, the 45 year-old was found in his bathtub, where he had been submerged in water so hot that it boiled away his flesh.

Or...

Karen Simon was a young British woman who rather suspiciously 'hanged herself' after being refused a contract with the maritime branch of the Religion. At the time, she was preparing a damning negative report on the church's activities.

and...

Pius Keel was a 22 year old man who wrote to his mother that he was sick of the swindle of Scientology: they had taken every last cent from him and he'd taken out substantial loans on their behalf, leaving himself deeply in debt. One day, his life ruined, he threw himself under a train.

[Seshmeister]

Maybe Mr G is just a troll pretending to be a scientologist.

Scientologists are told to keep away from the internet(for obvious reasons...)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Maybe Mr G is just a troll pretending to be a scientologist.

Scientologists are told to keep away from the internet(for obvious reasons...)

Good point, but I figured he'd go running once I put that TIME article on. And he did. I think he maybe legit.

[Mr. G]

Actually Time retracted thier article years ago. This original thread had to do with Psychiatry but with all the adolescent squeeling nobody has posted one scientific study. I have answered many questions and backed up my claims but there hasen't been any claim backing on the other side. So I am guessing nobody wants to have a grownup conversation. Oh well. Life goes on.

[Cathedral]

I am a scientific study, friend.
I don't need someone elses force-fed spycho babble in a pretty article to understand how complex the mind is.
And i certainly don't give a damn what some over paid actor has to say about any of it.
If he studied it, fine, "Good For You, Tom!"
I love it when people educate themselves about stuff, it's what they study and why that seems to never make sense to me. and then they run off at the mouth basically telling people to stop taking meds that you should never just 'stop-taking'.

His opinion is appreciated, his approach is dangerous but i agree with one Tommy Boy point, Awareness is good.

And i'm against giving any drugs to any children that are designed to subdue them and "mellow" them out.
(Children with clear and severe psychosis abnormalities, that do exist in society [see Michael Myers], and are locked up, are exempt)

That said, Doctors who are quick to medicate someone without really trying to help them understand their problems need to be regulated.
There are all sorts of issues that tie into psychiatry that need to be looked into very seriously.
First, look at some of the dangerous drugs being prescribed and getting rid of the bad shit that does more harm than good.

The rest is doing shit we all should be doing, exercising and living a healthier life.
A healthier body means a healthier mind, that's a fact.
Anything that shuts us down ain't good.

People just have to choose good Doctors above all else.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Mr. G
Actually Time retracted thier article years ago. This original thread had to do with Psychiatry but with all the adolescent squeeling nobody has posted one scientific study. I have answered many questions and backed up my claims but there hasen't been any claim backing on the other side. So I am guessing nobody wants to have a grownup conversation. Oh well. Life goes on.

You haven't backed up shit.

I posted exactly why Time 'retracted' their article. Do you have to read this thread with your eyes half closed in case you get into trouble?

[Mr. G]

How about ANOTHER opinion from a psychologist.

The Following Was In The ConservativeVoice.com
1. Opinion Cruising Szasz Saturday, July 09, 2005 02:01:08 PM

Actor Tom Cruise created quite a stir on June 25 when he called psychiatry a "pseudoscience," asserted a chemical basis for Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder doesn't exist, and said that anti-depressant drugs masked problems-in-living. He used the actress Brooke Shields as a case in point, citing her postpartum depression, engendering a fair amount of hostility from those who disagreed with him, including Ms. Shields. The New York Times published her rejoinder on July 1. Cruise was criticized by psychiatric apologists and sycophants as irresponsible and dangerous for speaking his mind - and the truth.
A lot of people seem to have misunderstood what Tom Cruise said. It is not necessarily the case that he's a Scientology-brainwashed whacko, or that his ideas about psychiatry even came from the Church of Scientology. Cruise learned a lot about psychiatry from the writings of psychiatric abolitionist Thomas Szasz. Many people around the world consider Szasz an intellectual heavyweight, someone whose ideas about medicine, disease, science, liberty and responsibility should be taken seriously. Cruise has read a lot of Szasz's writings and he admires Szasz a great deal. (See a photograph taken last year of Szasz with his arm around Cruise at http://www.szasz.com/szaszcruise.gif.) His words echo Szaszian ideas. Szasz has upset many psychiatrists over the years because he is a member of the psychiatry and psychoanalysis clubs criticizing its own.
In real science this is expected to occur in order to advance scientific knowledge-theories must be falsifiable. In pseudoscience, such criticism is forbidden. The American Psychiatric Association (APA), responding to Cruise's comments on NBC's Today Show, asserts in a press release dated June 27 that "science has proven that mental illnesses are real medical conditions . . . and that it is unfortunate that a small number of individuals and groups persist in questioning its [mental health's] legitimacy." Is this claim by the APA actually true, or is it political rhetoric? Why would the APA be upset with someone who questions its legitimacy, disagrees with its ideas, explanations, and policy recommendations regarding "mental illness?" Actress Brooke Shields is understandably upset. She responded to Cruise claiming she has a disease caused by changing levels of estrogen and progesterone during and after pregnancy. This disease allegedly kept her from being the "loving parent . . . [she] is today." It is difficult to argue with someone who uses her own experience to prove that something is scientifically correct. If one shows how she is wrong, one can easily be accused of lacking compassion. Compassion has nothing to do with the truth. Critics of psychiatry are frequently accused of lacking compassion. I fail to see how depriving an innocent person of liberty, forcing a person to take drugs she doesn't want to take, and shocking her brain with electricity against her will-all done in the name of treating mental illness-are indications of compassion. What of the substance of Cruise's arguments?
The truth is science has never proven that mental illnesses are "real" medical conditions, anymore than it proved homosexuality is a disease. (Homosexuality was declassified as a disease by the APA in 1973, largely due to the writings of Thomas Szasz.) The truth is standard textbooks on pathology do not list mental illnesses among real diseases like cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and syphilis. Why? Because only the body can be sick, not behavior. Certainly people exhibit irrational, socially unacceptable and abnormal behavior for all sorts of reasons. But it is wrong to call behaviors diseases. Diseases refer to physical lesions, wounds of the body, not behaviors, conduct, or deportment. In other words, Cruise is right. The truth is there is no evidence to support the idea that anti-depressant drugs cure or restore chemical imbalances, even though they may certainly help people to feel better about themselves. Szasz pointed this out years ago. These drugs influence chemicals in the body, but then everything we do is accompanied by chemical and electrical changes in the body. This is simply not the same as saying the changes in our body make us do this or that. We cannot tell who is depressed by drawing blood, studying fluid balances, or looking at pictures of the structure and function of the brain. There is no such thing as asymptomatic "mental illness"-yet there most certainly when it comes to real diseases like cancer and heart disease.
Szasz is best known for his insistence that "mental illness" is a metaphor, and that we go astray if we take the metaphor literally. Yet belief in mental illness is not his main target. In Szasz's view, individuals should be free to devote themselves to any variety of psychiatric belief and practice. What Szasz objects to is forcing people to see (or not see) a psychiatrist, to reside or not reside in a mental hospital, to partake (or not partake) of drugs, and to believe (or not believe) in any specific set of ideas. Cruise, again echoing Szasz, rightly objected to the involuntary administration of psychiatric "treatments." One way people try to discredit both Szasz and Cruise is by playing the Scientology-is-a-cult card.
Today, it is as fashionable to criticize Scientologists and Scientology as it was to criticize Jews and Judaism in 1930s and 1940s Germany. Scientology is recognized by our federal government as a religion and demands the same respect and tolerance we show any other religion. Instead of asking why Scientology endorses Thomas Szasz's ideas, we should be asking why other religions do not. The rule of cults is "thou shalt not disagree." Break the rule and you break the spell. Cruise broke a rule: Thou shalt not criticize psychiatry. Some say psychiatry is a cult. What is most upsetting to those in the psychiatry cult? That someone who attracts a lot of attention should dare to point out that the emperor called psychiatry has no clothes. That is exactly what Mr. Cruise has done. In so doing, his head sticks out above the crowd, to be sure, speaking truth to power, but largely because he is standing on the shoulders of Thomas Szasz.
Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D., a psychologist, is a professor at American University's School of Public Affairs. His latest book is "Szasz Under Fire: The Psychiatric Abolitionist Faces His Critics" (Open Court, Chicago, 2004). He lives in Ellicott City, Maryland.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Mr. G
Actually Time retracted thier article years ago. This original thread had to do with Psychiatry but with all the adolescent squeeling nobody has posted one scientific study. I have answered many questions and backed up my claims but there hasen't been any claim backing on the other side. So I am guessing nobody wants to have a grownup conversation. Oh well. Life goes on.

Really? Show me the retraction statement then!

TIME's story has in fact been corroborated by recent reporting in THE BUFFALO NEWS.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Mr. G
How about ANOTHER opinion from a psychologist.

The Following Was In The ConservativeVoice.com

Gee...I wonder who owns "Conservative Voice?" What a major national publication that is...

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by Mr. G
How about ANOTHER opinion from a psychologist.

This dude's probably ostricised as well. Good for him...there is no doubt over-prescribing of psychoactive drugs takes place.

"Doctors" don't tool around in Benzo's via yohimbe recommendations. Pharmaceutical companies make these people, and themselves rich selling pills.

That's a problem.

Proper usage of said drugs is not. Tom Cruise is a fucking idiot.....his generalized, slanted, attention-seeking comments are laughable.

I tell you what, put Tom Cruise and his space worshiping buddies to the task with a violent manic-depressive. I'm talking the real deal here...not some fucking melancholy housewife. They can put aloe salve on the motherfuckers emergency-room quality gashes he/she inflicts upon he/she's self. They can use organic cleaning solvents after he/she defacates and/or urinates all over their quarters. Sing a fucking song to the person...take 'em to the fucking park. None of it will work.

You know what will work?
A hardcore sedative, followed up with proper, long-term medication.

This shit is fucking ridiculous.

[Mr. G]

You can always tell when someone is losing an intellectual argument, they attack the messenger instead of the message. Go ahead and make my point further. Go ahead. This is fun.

[Seshmeister]

LOL!

Dude Scientology and Intellectual arguments don't mix...:D

Or were you talking about yourself.